Book Reviews

Nancy Fraser’s Cannibal Capitalism: An Extended Discussion

Cannibal Capitalism

By Irina Herb, Dana Abdel-Fatah, Deborshi Chakraborty, and George Edwards

Nancy Fraser begins her most recent book, Cannibal Capitalism, by noting that the ‘current boom in capitalism talk remains largely rhetorical’.[1] Against this backdrop, the book seeks to equip a wider audience with an accessible framework to analyse ‘all these horribles’.[2] To do so, she upcycles and synthesises some of her earlier works, weaving them together through the metaphor of cannibalism which serves to symbolise capital’s undermining of its necessary background conditions.[3]

Closely following her earlier work,[4] Fraser starts the book with an accessible short introduction to the basics of an ‘orthodox’ account of Marx: studying the sphere of production, Marx finds that capital does not expand through the process of exchanging equivalents in markets. Rather, it expands in the process of production, when workers sell their labour-power to capitalists and do not get compensated for all of it(‘exploitation’). As she recounts, for Marx the preconditions for the capitalist mode of production were the violent processes of dispossessing/expropriating people of their means of subsistence and production during the ‘enclosures’ and formal colonialism (‘primitive’ or ‘original accumulation’). This created private ownership of the means of production, ‘doubly-free’ workers, ‘self-expanding value’ and the distinctive role of markets. Quoting Piero Sraffa, she characterises capitalism as a system for the ‘production of commodities by means of commodities’. However, she adds as a starting point for her discussion, ‘one that also relies, as we shall see, on a background of non-commodities’.[5]

From this point onwards, Fraser takes her readers beyond Marx and his scrutiny of ‘the hidden abode’ of production. She takes them to ‘abodes that are even more hidden still’ and ‘still in need of conceptualisation’. In this sense, her work may be seen as the ambitious attempt to fill ‘new volumes of Capital[6] with a systematic account of the background conditions of possibility for exploitation. These conditions occur not only ‘outside the economy’, but function via logics different to those of the economy. The economy, with its front-story of exploitation and back-story of expropriation follows, as Marx himself had laid out, the logic of capital accumulation: power and resources are invested to produce commodities to be sold for surplus-value on markets. In the realm of unpaid social reproduction, in contrast, gendered ‘angels of the home’[7] in families and communities reproduce the worker without remuneration but driven by ideals of ‘care’, ‘mutual responsibility’, and ‘solidarity’.[8] The realm of politics provides the ‘public powers to guarantee property rights, enforce contracts, adjudicate disputes, quell anti-capitalist rebellions, maintain the money supply’.[9] The realm of non-human ecology provides resources necessary for production and a sink for its waste. Crucially, the functional differences and constructed boundaries between the economy and other ‘zones of non-commodification’, which run according to ‘distinctive ontologies of social practice and normative ideals’,[10] are no pre-capitalist relic but, in fact, fundamental to capitalism.

Based on such an ‘expanded notion of capitalism’, Fraser sheds a clarifying light on crises and processes of (de-)commodification: Rather than focussing on contradictions within the economic realm, she explains domination, destruction, and crises through the construction of boundariesbetween the economy and the non-commodified zones, which are specific to capitalist societies. Each of the realms, as well as racialised expropriation, is understood to stand in a contradictory but interdependent relationship with the economy. These ‘four “contradictions” of capitalism’ each ‘correspond to a genre of cannibalisation and embodies a “crisis tendency”’:[11] Capitalists depend on the non-commodified zones but are structurally pushed to deplete them. For example, capitalists are incentivised to keep the costs of social reproduction as low as possible – providing low standards of work protection, and legal means of tax avoidance – while equally depending on workers to be healthy (enough) to do the work. This contradiction, Fraser notes by drawing on Wallerstein, means that ‘capitalism is not characterised by pervasive commodification and monetisation, rather, commodification is far from universal and where it is present, it depends on zones of non-commodification’.[12]

After outlining her expanded notion of capitalism that conceptualises capitalism as consisting not only of the economy but also its background conditions, Fraser dedicates one chapter to each of them: expropriation, unpaid social reproduction, nature and the polity.

To Fraser, expropriation is ‘integral to capitalist society’[13] rather than an initial stockpiling of capital at the system’s beginnings (so-called ‘primitive accumulation’).[14] She argues that the concept of expropriation shines light on two phenomena: First, the fact that unlike as with exploitation, where ‘doubly free’ workers are paid only part of the value they produce, the concept of expropriation captures how land and labour-power continue to be stolen. The subjects of this theft are not random: According to her, the line between the ‘exes’ runs along the colour line. It is ‘their assignment to two different populations, that underpins racial oppression’:[15]white workers are exploited, whereas value is expropriated from racialised ‘dependent’ subjects.[16] Secondly, political orders enable such theft from racialised groups by legitimising and enforcing constructs like ‘chattels slaves, indentured servants, colonised subjects, “native” members of “domestic dependent nations”, debt peons, “illegals” and felons’.[17] In this sense, ‘the distinction between the two “exes” is a function not only of accumulation but also of domination’.[18]

With her conceptualisation of expropriation as mediated through racism, Fraser picks up on what she calls ‘a profound but underappreciated stream of critical theorising, known as Black Marxism’[19] that flourished between the 1930s and 1980s around figures like C.L.R. James, W.E.B. Du Bois, Stuart Hall, Walter Rodney, Angela Davis, Manning Marable, Barbara Fields and Michael Dawson, and has been reinvigorated by scholars such as Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Cedric Johnson, Barbara Ransby and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. Rather than positing racism as either necessary orcontingent to capitalism, Fraser claims that capitalism providesstructurally enabling conditions for racism and racial oppression.

After presenting the modality in which expropriation relates to exploitation in different historical regimes of racialised accumulation, Fraser concludes that in the present regime of financialised capitalism, in which private debt plays a pivotal role, the line between the two exes has become muddied. We now witness a new hybrid modality of the ‘expropriated-and-exploited citizen-worker. No longer restricted to peripheral populations and racial minorities, this new figure is becoming the norm.’[20]

In her chapter on unpaid reproduction as a background condition for the economy, Fraser notes a deep-seated contradiction or crisis tendency between capital accumulation and social reproduction.[21] Analogous to the periodic crises in the economy, we witness periodical ‘major cris[e]s – not simply of care, but of social reproduction in the broadest sense’.[22] In this context, the ‘division between social reproduction and commodity production is central to capitalism’:[23] parallel to the formation of the split between workers and capitalists, productive and reproductive work were split apart, the latter relegated to a separate, private, domestic sphere, obscuring its social importance and depriving it of remuneration in cash form. Through their association with it, women and feminised groups became structurally subordinated.

This contradiction has been tackled differently in different phases of capitalism: during the era of mercantile capitalism, reproduction in the core mainly continued to take place within households and churches, while in the ‘periphery’, social bonds were violently upended through looting, enslavement, and the dispossession of Indigenous people. In the liberal-colonial phase, women (and children) flocking into factories brought about a crisis of social reproduction and gender roles – a phenomenon famously and controversially commented on by Marx and Engels. This was managed by creating ‘the family’ in its modern restricted form. Drawing on Maria Mies, Fraser mentions the concept of ‘housewifization’ while also noting that poor, racialised and working-class women could never live up to the ideals of housewifery. As Fraser notes, this ‘struggle to ensure the integrity of social reproduction became entangled with the defence of male domination’.[24] In state-managed capitalism, the core dealt with the contradiction by enlisting state power in the form of welfare and the family wage, whereas social reproduction remained mainly beyond the purview of government in the periphery. In today’s financialised capitalism, new developments include divestment from social welfare, recruitment of women into the paid workforce and, resulting from that, a dual organisation of social reproduction: commodified for those who can afford it and privatised for those who cannot, with household debt and global care chains playing an increasing role.[25]

Fraser understands the natural world as a further noneconomic background condition for capitalist economies. ‘More than a relation to labour, capital is a relation to nature’,[26] Fraser insists. A capitalist economy depends on nature’s biophysical wealth to pile up value, but any responsibility for the ecological harms wrought – carbon dioxide flooding the atmosphere, islands of plastic rising from the seas, deforestation driving lethal pandemics – is routinely denied: ‘the damages are the flip side of profits’.[27] From the perspective of capital, nature is the ontological other of humanity, an infinite ‘realm of stuff, devoid of value’, but, in reality, the natural world is unable to self-replenish without limit. This predatory and extractive relation to nature thus leads to the eventual exhaustion of resources and destabilisation of ecosystems, a dynamic that in turn undermines capitalist society’s own ecological conditions of possibility. This, for Fraser, is ‘capitalism’s ecological contradiction’ – programmed as an iron law within the very structure of the economy.

Back in 1988, James O’Connor outlined this general schema as the ‘second contradiction of capital’, while in the spring of 2020, Andreas Malm[28] identified this theory as manifesting in crisis: with workers forced to shield themselves away from deadly pathogens, large parts of the economy ground to a halt. Yet the originality of Fraser’s contribution lies in the insistence that capitalism’s ecological contradiction cannot be isolated from the ‘system’s other constitutive irrationalities and injustices’.[29] The system denies social reproduction when it destroys life-sustaining ecosystems. It creates racially marked populations for expropriation when political powers enable resources to be extracted. Notwithstanding the divisions capitalist society enforces between the domains of economy, state, care and nature, Fraser maintains that all spheres are intimately connected, any one contradiction inescapably interacting with contradictions elsewhere. The central point being that we cannot fully anatomise capitalism’s ecological crisis without grasping the mutually interacting contradictions that constitute capitalist society.

Building on the concept of boundary shifts and struggles, Fraser aims to provide for the above abstractions a concrete form. From ox-turned mills to coal-fired industrialisation, through oil-fuelled automobility to carbon-traded ‘green capitalism’, she demonstrates the distinct ways in which each stage of capitalist development organised its relation to nature and managed its contradictions. Fraser endeavours to show not only how each ‘socio-ecological regime’ generated their energy and extracted their resources but also the concrete meanings that each regime ascribed to nature. To elaborate this latter point, Fraser wades into debates animating certain lines of ecological Marxism, as she tries to get a firmer grip on the ‘slippery’ term that is ‘nature’. She presents the reader with three natures: Nature I – a scientific-realist conception of nature as an objective force; Nature II – a structural analysis of the capital–nature relation – and Nature III – the object studied by historical materialism, concrete and changing over time. With ecosystems services, carbon-trading schemes and environmental derivatives now littering the capitalist imaginary, there is a green veneer to the inter-subjective beliefs that motivate the capitalist class (Nature II). But, whilst their actions may bring forth lithium mines or enclose lands for carbon credits (Nature III), very little will be done to tame the biophysical realities of global warming (Nature I). Whilst this tripartite schema of nature reminds us to remain vigilant against green illusions and technological fixes, it may be noted at this point that it is not clear what advances this somewhat clunky terminology offers to understanding beliefs about nature that a concept like ideology does not.

In her chapter on the polity as a background condition, Fraser outlines how, in capitalist societies, the economy crucially relies on public powers to guarantee property rights, enforce contracts, adjudicate disputes, quell anti-capitalist rebellions, and maintain the money supply.[30] In this context, she engages with the question of what causes the crisis of democracy and what its solution could be. She bluntly opposes what she calls ‘politicism’[31] – the liberal idea that the crisis is a consequence of the decline in the political ethos and the power of constitutional regimes. In this narrative, the solution is seen to lie within the political realm, an approach Fraser criticises for overlooking ‘extra-political society’.[32] While eschewing such liberal interpretations of the political crisis, Fraser also claims to avoid the ‘economism’ of past Marxists. In this line, Fraser’s fundamental contribution is her effort to connect the political crisis with the social, ecological, and economic crises.

Similar to Lenin’s attempt to understand the metamorphosis of capitalism from one avatar to another, Fraser outlines different stages of capitalism to understand the origin of today’s crisis. The current stage of capitalism is analysed through the prism of financialised capitalism where central banks and global financial institutions have become leading players[33] while simultaneously relying and freeriding on ‘public powers to establish and enforce its constitutive norms’.[34] These newly empowered global institutions have become sovereign in their function without being answerable to the public or the state, while their functioning is tremendously consequential to the public. To her, this conglomeration manifests itself in economic crises (e.g. Greece in 2015), political crises (e.g. Brazil in 2017–18), and the current refugee crisis.[35] Furthermore, Fraser argues that populism and populist regimes need to be understood as having come into power as a reaction to the onslaught of financialised capitalism. In this context, she criticises popular social movements for operating in the shadow of liberal hegemony, functioning as ‘junior partners of the progressive-neoliberal bloc’.[36] Precisely because of their previous and ongoing deep entanglement with neoliberalism, creating mistrust on the part of common working people, these movement failed to put up substantial opposition to the populist regimes.

Fraser ends the book by announcing the hope that ‘socialism is back!’, and goes on to advertise for it. Her vocal support for a socialist future certainly facilitates the mainstreaming and destigmatising of the discussions on socialism in academia. Apart from this zeal, however, Fraser’s book represents a theorem concerning today’s capitalist crisis rather than a manifesto for the future: her primary contribution is geared towards understanding capitalism and its crises. Therefore, when the reader turns to the chapter that promises to speak about ‘what we can do’, they should expect a short and limited intervention on socialism which side-lines some of the questions truly at stake. For example, the failure of twentieth-century socialism is often attributed to the lack of democracy and the hegemonic presence of the party in society and state functioning. Therefore, Fraser’s emphasis on the importance of inclusivity in decision-making is well-placed.[37] Yet, past socialist experiments have never disagreed in principle on the importance of inclusivity in the decision-making process, but nevertheless often failed on that score in practice. Therefore, at this point, a discussion of ‘what we can do’ will have to go beyond simply repeating calls for inclusivity. Here, thorny and nitty-gritty questions around the transformation to socialism (and the role of violence within it) and multiparty democracy in a post-revolutionary society remain to be discussed. Secondly, Fraser reiterates the classical socialist approach that a ‘socialist society must democratise control over social surplus’.[38] Yet, again, such attempts have failed in the past – for example in ‘Leninism’, where the state became the custodian of the surplus, which led to state capitalism rather than to the socialist redistribution of surplus – thus the debate on the ownership of surplus must go deeper, asking critical questions about the relationship between state and capital, including the state’s role in accumulating surplus and its redistribution.

Concluding Remarks

Fraser is not the first to claim that in capitalist societies the economy relies on ‘noncommodified zones’ such as unpaid ‘housework’, nature, the polity, and racism (as a mechanism to justify expropriation). Yet, surely, she may be credited for her attempt to bring disparate insights from older Marxist figures, including Karl Marx and Rosa Luxemburg, and newer voices from the realms of Marxist Feminism (Eli Zaretsky, Lise Vogel, Nancy Flobre, Barara Laslett, Johanna Brenner, Susan Ferguson, Cinzia Arruzza, Tithi Bhattacharya) as well as figures from the ranks of eco-Marxism (James O’Connor, Jason Moore) together into one expanded notion of capitalism. Not only does her framework allow for connections between these different thinkers, it also helps elucidate political and strategic implications. This may be illustrated by way of an example: In Capital, Marx already drew on the example of a teacher to show that the same type of work (teaching) can occur both productively (in a private school) and unproductively (in a public school). Fraser now helpfully adds to the distinction between the productive and unproductive: her framework of different non-commodified zones is not only potentially easier to understand but also allows for more complexity than Marx’s binary distinction. In particular, it creates more space to theorise unproductive work commissioned by the state (care homes, childcare, etc.) – an important point of debates amongst Marxist Feminists. Furthermore, her framework helps us discern and politicise an important question: ‘In which realm should which work occur?’ ‘Moving’ activities from one realm to another shifts the boundary between these realms and therefore their size and power. To Fraser, these ‘boundary struggles’ are the ‘very stuff of social struggle in capitalist societies – as fundamental as the class struggles over control of commodity production and distribution of surplus value that Marx privileged.’ To her, they ‘decisively shape the structure of capitalist societies’.[39]

Two issues arise from Fraser’s framework that deserve further discussion.

Firstly, Fraser’s conceptualisation of different forms of oppression leaves room for debate. At a general level, the fact that she ascribes the particular types of domination respectively to each one of the (re-)productive spheres (plus expropriation) might be seen as a tempting proposition, since it appears to afford simple, clean answers – gendered oppression occurs in the realm of unpaid social reproduction, racism through the process of expropriation, ecological destruction within the realm of nature, and ‘political domination’[40] within the realm of politics. In doing so, she claims that her framework ‘brings together in a single frame all the oppressions, contradictions, and conflicts of the present conjuncture’.[41] Yet, unfortunately, the story of oppression is more complex – both with regard to questions of intersecting oppressions and with regard to forms of marginalisation that inevitably fall outside of her narrow framework. For example, readers may be surprised to find that queerness and queer-hatred hardly play a role, while ableism is not mentioned. These omissions are crucial – in particular, the case of queer-hatred would likely bring into question the idea that each form of discrimination fits neatly within a single box.

More specifically, Fraser’s emphasis on expropriation to conceptualise racism has certainly added to the debate in important ways. Yet, it should be discussed whether her use of the concept may be doing both too much and too little at the same time. Too much in the sense that it is dubious whether the ‘two exes’ are really fit to do as much of the analytical lifting to explain racism as she seems to suggest: Expropriation does not seem sufficient to explain racism in all its different historical and global formations, not to mention its relationship with other categories like religion, ethnicity, or caste. It is also worth remembering that the US American case, which Fraser appears to prioritise, does not translate easily to other contexts. Furthermore, Fraser’s heavy reliance on the concept of expropriation to capture the theft of land and labour from racialised groups and to motivate political orders, comes at the cost of neglecting important superstructural factors, including the ideological dimension of racism.[42] In addition, it seems unclear to what extent her explanation of racism holds today: After discussing the blurring line between the two exes in the current regime of financialised capitalism, Fraser rightly asks, ‘why does racism outlive the disappearance of the sharp separation of the two exes?’[43] Yet, this question remains largely unanswered, left as an exercise for future discussions: How can we conceptualise racialising dynamics in financialised capitalism? What are the political and social implications of the conflation of the ‘two exes’? Does Fraser’s model appropriately capture the past but fall short in explaining racialisation processes in the present? Or is there a deeper underlying issue that renders her model questionable more generally?

Fraser’s application of expropriation may do too little in the sense that it is empirically and conceptually unclear why she restricts the reach of expropriation to explaining racism, rather than domination and oppression more generally. For example, women have been, and at points continue to be, legally excluded from voting, certain forms of work or holding their own bank accounts.[44] Fraser herself discusses how patriarchal legislation (accompanied by norms) has rendered women vulnerable to conducting unpaid ‘housework’. Here, she not only seems to court a logical contradiction when she refrains from using the concept of expropriation in the context of patriarchy. She also curiously omits Federici’s and other feminists’ argument that before there was the expropriation of the land, there was the expropriation of the female body.[45]

Taking into account that, in a later chapter, Fraser turns to expropriation to make sense of ecological destruction,[46] it seems apt to ask: could there be a larger conceptual issue concerning expropriation in Fraser’s overall framework? It is at least noteworthy that Fraser seems to conceptualise expropriation on a par with the realms of nature, social reproduction and polity as ‘non-economic normativities’[47] which serve as background conditions to the economy. Yet, nature, social reproduction, polity, and economy are realms within which (re-)production occurs, whereas exploitation and expropriation describe the mode of non- or under-compensation. In this sense, rather than conceptualising expropriation as occurring adjacent to the non-commodified zones, we should discuss whether expropriation ought to be conceptualised as occurring within the economic realm,between the economy and its background conditions andwithin the realms of the background conditions.

Secondly, what is an anti-capitalist struggle? Against the backdrop of her contention that the economy depends on non-commodified zones, Fraser states that ‘what counts as an anti-capitalist struggle is thus much broader than Marxists have traditionally supposed’.[48] While this is certainly a valid (albeit not a new) point, a problem arises: She eschews the truly tricky question of which struggles are anti-capitalist and which prolong its life. At points, the reader might get the impression that any struggle is anti-capitalist, given that it may undermine the background conditions of the economic sphere. More prominently though, Fraser offers a scathing critique of those movements which have failed to be anti-capitalist in their struggles. She understands them to serve as ‘front men […] by casting a veneer over the predatory political economy of neoliberalism’. This ‘unholy alliance ravaged the life conditions of the vast majority and thereby created the soil that nourished the Right’.[49] She furthermore criticises ‘that romantic view [which] is held today by a fair number of anti-capitalist thinkers and left-wing activists’ who ‘too often […] treat “care,” “nature,” “direct action,” “commoning,” or (neo) “communalism” as intrinsically anti-capitalist’.[50] From our perspective, the point here is not to dismiss her critique of romanticised (and oftentimes depoliticised) ideas of anti-capitalism. Rather, the point is of an analytical and pragmatic nature: how far will activists get when they learn that some forms of activism are ‘too romantic’ or too ‘neo-liberal’ and yet are unable to learn what actually constitutes anti-capitalist struggles? Here, Fraser unhelpfully downplays a question which has been and still is hotly debated: how do struggles get co-opted? And when is care-work in non-commodified zones, which is at times associated with anti-capitalist resistance, accidentally propping up and perpetuating the system by keeping its background conditions running? When could non-commodified zones serve as pockets for resistance and foster the formation of alternatives?

To conclude, Cannibal Capitalism should not be missed by anyone who is interested in making sense of current crises. It is also a must-read for those involved in analytical debates on overarching Marxist frameworks which synthesise work on social reproduction, racism, the state, and ecology.


Bhattacharya, Tithi 2017, ‘Introduction: Mapping Social Reproduction Theory’, in Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression, edited by Tithi Bhattacharya, pp. 1–20, London: Pluto Press.

Cooper, Melinda 2017, Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism, New York: Zone Books.

Federici, Silvia 1975, Wages against Housework, Bristol: Falling Wall Press/The Power of Women Collective.

Federici, Silvia 2004, Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation, New York: Autonomedia.

Ferguson, Susan 2020, Women and Work: Feminism, Labour, and Social Reproduction, London: Pluto Press.

Fraser, Nancy 2014, ‘Behind Marx’s Hidden Abode: For an Expanded Conception of Capitalism’, New Left Review, II, 86: 55–72.

Fraser, Nancy 2022, Cannibal Capitalism: How our System is Devouring Democracy, Care, and the Planet – and What We Can Do About It, London: Verso.

Fraser, Nancy and Rahel Jaeggi 2018, Capitalism: A Conversation in Critical Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Luxemburg, Rosa 1975 [1913], Die Akkumulation des Kapitals. Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Erklärung des Imperialism, inGessamelte Werke, Bd. 5., Berlin: Dietz Verlag.

Malm, Andreas 2021, Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency: War Communism in the Twenty-First Century, London: Verso.

Marx, Karl 1974 [1857/1858], Grundrisse der Kritik Der Politischen Ökonomie, Berlin: Dietz Verlag.

Morgenstern, Christine 2002, Rassismus – Konturen einer Ideologie.Einwanderung im politischen Diskurs der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Hamburg: Argument Verlag.

Müller, Jost 2002, ‘An den Grenzen kritischer Rassismustheorie. Einige Anmerkungen zu Diskurs, Alltag und Ideologie’, in Konjunkturen des Rassismus, edited by A. Demirovic and M. Bojadzijev, pp. 226–45, Münster: Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot.

[1] Fraser 2022, p. 1.

[2]Fraser 2022, p. xii.

[3]Fraser 2022, pp. xiii–xiv.

[4]Fraser 2014; Fraser and Jaeggi 2018.

[5]Fraser 2022, p. 5.

[6]Fraser 2022, p. 8.

[7]Fraser 2022, p. 61.

[8]Fraser 2022, p. 18.

[9]Fraser 2022, p. 12.

[10]Fraser 2022, p. 20.

[11]Fraser 2022, p. 24.

[12]Fraser 2022, p. 18.

[13] Fraser 2022, p. 33.

[14] Fraser 2022, p. 36.

[15] Fraser 2022, p. 29.

[16] Fraser 2022, p. 36.

[17] Fraser 2022, p. 33.

[18] Fraser 2022, p. 37.

[19] Fraser 2022, p. 27.

[20] Fraser 2022, p. 47.

[21]Fraser 2022, p. 54.

[22]Fraser 2022, p. 53.

[23]Fraser 2022, p. 9.

[24] Fraser 2022, p. 60.

[25] Fraser 2022, p. 68.

[26] Fraser 2022, p. 83.

[27] Fraser 2022, p. 83.

[28] Malm 2021.

[29] Fraser 2022, p. 90.

[30] Fraser 2022, p. 12.

[31]Fraser 2022, p. 115.

[32]Fraser 2022, p. 115.

[33]Fraser 2022, pp. 127–8.

[34]Fraser 2022, p. 119.

[35]Fraser 2022, p. 131.

[36]Fraser 2022, p. 136.

[37]Fraser 2022, p. 153.

[38]Fraser 2022, p. 154.

[39]Fraser 2022, p. 21.

[40]Fraser 2022, p. 25.

[41]Fraser 2022, p. xv.

[42] See for example: Morgenstern 2002; Müller 2002.

[43] Fraser 2022, p. 49.

[44] For example, West German married women required their husband’s written consent to join the workforce until 1977 and to hold a bank account until 1958. In some countries similar arrangements remain in place until today.

[45] Federici 2004.

[46] Fraser 2022, p. 89.

[47] Fraser 2022, p. 18.

[48]Fraser 2022, p. 25.

[49]Fraser 2022, p. 136.

[50]Fraser 2022, p. 22.